United States v. Epskamp

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the statute then codified at 21 U.S.C. § 959(b
• noting that when two provisions “would otherwise be duplicative” is “a most compelling indication” that they should be construed differently
• noting that legislative history may be invoked for confirmatory purposes
• rejecting narrow construction of extraterritoriality provision in 21 U.S.C. § 12 959 because it would cause “redundancy within the federal statutory 13 framework”
• noting that legislative history may be invoked for confirmatory purposes
• “A particular statute’s plain meaning can best be understood by looking to the statutory scheme as a whole and placing the particular provision within the context of that statute.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named United States v. Epskamp

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• United States v. Epskamp
  Second Circuit· 2016-08-05